If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
I guess this truly defines the expression "astro-not": Two guys show up for space duty only to find the X-37B is unmanned.
Wikipedia shows a crude playstation-like "artist's rendering of the X-37 spacecraft". It´s almost like they are trying to set the standards for "artistic rendering" vs. "real photography". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-3 ... ition.jpeg
The main picture of the Wikipedia article has a very artificial, almost 2-dimensional, feel about it, but I can´t quite put my finger on what it is (apart from the pasted-on markings). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-3 ... launch.jpg
This is the first crude picture obtained from Explorer VI Earth satellite launched August 7, 1959. It shows a sun-lighted area of the Central Pacific ocean and its cloud cover. The picture was made when the satellite was about 17,000 miles above the surface of the earth on August 14, 1959. At the time, the satellite was crossing Mexico. The signals were received at the South Point, Hawaii, tracking station.
NASA claims the Sun is looking like a Jack-O'-Lantern, symbol of the lunatic American “holiday” known as Halloween on Oct 31st which celebrates death, horror, the occult and other such things.
NASA tells us that on Oct 19th a comet flew past and very close to Mars. To avoid any damage to the 3 satellites orbiting the planet, NASA says they took a “duck and cover” strategy and maneuvered these 3 orbiting craft to the opposite side of Mars just when the comet flew past. This is illustrated here:
I wasn't aware that one could maneuver orbiting satellites to a particular side of the planet. I mean they're in an orbit, right? They're flying around the planet. How does one go about “maneuvering” them to one particular side at a particular time? NASA didn’t explain how they did this. I guess it must be a military secret.
lux wrote:NASA claims the Sun is looking like a Jack-O'-Lantern, symbol of the lunatic American “holiday” known as Halloween on Oct 31st which celebrates death, horror, the occult and other such things.
Thanks for posting this and the other 'duck and cover' story!
I saw this Halloween sun when it first came out and I wasn't sure if it was a joke or they were serious because it is so preposterous. I read and reread the NASA blurb and still not sure. But this brings up another question. I have noticed lots of videos now about 'solar flares.' And there are photos of a burning globe. WHERE/HOW do they get those pictures? Isn't that thing thing 93 million miles away? I do not have a scientific mind, so maybe it's possible, but it all seems rather suspicious to me.
gwynned wrote:
Thanks for posting this and the other 'duck and cover' story!
My pleasure.
I saw this Halloween sun when it first came out and I wasn't sure if it was a joke or they were serious because it is so preposterous. I read and reread the NASA blurb and still not sure.
The sun image comes from the Solar Dynamics Observatory and, as far as i know, it was reported in all seriousness (or as serious as a NASA affiliated agency can be).
But this brings up another question. I have noticed lots of videos now about 'solar flares.' And there are photos of a burning globe. WHERE/HOW do they get those pictures? Isn't that thing thing 93 million miles away? I do not have a scientific mind, so maybe it's possible, but it all seems rather suspicious to me.
In general solar photos are taken with a camera attached to a telescope and equipped with a solar filter (a very dark filter that only lets a small percentage of light through it). Of course, like any photo, these images can be altered or faked via computer graphics software.
gwynned wrote:
Thanks for posting this and the other 'duck and cover' story!
My pleasure.
I saw this Halloween sun when it first came out and I wasn't sure if it was a joke or they were serious because it is so preposterous. I read and reread the NASA blurb and still not sure.
The sun image comes from the Solar Dynamics Observatory and, as far as i know, it was reported in all seriousness (or as serious as a NASA affiliated agency can be).
But this brings up another question. I have noticed lots of videos now about 'solar flares.' And there are photos of a burning globe. WHERE/HOW do they get those pictures? Isn't that thing thing 93 million miles away? I do not have a scientific mind, so maybe it's possible, but it all seems rather suspicious to me.
In general solar photos are taken with a camera attached to a telescope and equipped with a solar filter (a very dark filter that only lets a small percentage of light through it). Of course, like any photo, these images can be altered or faked via computer graphics software.
Thanks for the explanations, though I'm still not buying it. In any case, whatever it is that captures these images is 'down,' so they have had to rely on lesser means to view the sun. Curiously, as I was watching this video by a guy who has been posting stuff on solar flares now for quite some time, I noticed that at 1:15 we clearly see the image of a lamb, or perhaps a cat. A bit hard to say. If I was adept at photoshop, I could help point it out, but I think it's pretty obvious, though it would certainly go unnoticed by most people unused to looking for hidden messages.
What do you think?
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEw61768qbs
hoi.polloi wrote:I am unfamiliar with human beings that aren't pattern-seeking animals. Not sure finding a pattern indicates it was put there.
Perhaps. And if they had not produced the jacko-lantern, I would have dismissed it. But since they have a history of placing signs and/or faking these images, I thought to give more credence to my observation. And I'm sticking with it for the moment.
These images seem too much like creations of the great and glorious Oz, even if they have the technical ability to capture movement on something 93 million miles away.
hoi.polloi wrote:I am unfamiliar with human beings that aren't pattern-seeking animals. Not sure finding a pattern indicates it was put there.
I agree, hoi, but in this case I think it's more than just finding a random pattern. For most Americans the month of October has a very strong association with Halloween so a supposedly random pattern resembling a symbol of Halloween in the month of October would be akin to, say, one resembling Santa Claus in the month of December. For me it's a bit too much of a coincidence to dismiss.
hoi.polloi wrote:I am unfamiliar with human beings that aren't pattern-seeking animals. Not sure finding a pattern indicates it was put there.
I agree, hoi, but in this case I think it's more than just finding a random pattern. For most Americans the month of October has a very strong association with Halloween so a supposedly random pattern resembling a symbol of Halloween in the month of October would be akin to, say, one resembling Santa Claus in the month of December. For me it's a bit too much of a coincidence to dismiss.
I think hoi was refering to my suggestion about the lamb which is far less obvious.
lux wrote:NASA tells us that on Oct 19th a comet flew past and very close to Mars. To avoid any damage to the 3 satellites orbiting the planet, NASA says they took a “duck and cover” strategy and maneuvered these 3 orbiting craft to the opposite side of Mars just when the comet flew past. This is illustrated here:
I wasn't aware that one could maneuver orbiting satellites to a particular side of the planet. I mean they're in an orbit, right? They're flying around the planet. How does one go about “maneuvering” them to one particular side at a particular time? NASA didn’t explain how they did this. I guess it must be a military secret.
Great catch. We are supposed to believe that satellites have only enough "gas" to basically re-boost themselves to a higher orbit periodically but not to cause drastic changes to their orbits. This is (supposedly ) what sets the X-37b apart from other orbiting machines, the fact that it can change its orbit.
But we are to believe that a couple little garbage-can type contraptions around Mars have enough fuel to both scoot to the other side of the planet on command and then (presumably) go back to where they are supposed to be, and have enough "gas" left over to periodically re-boost up to higher orbits as they gradually "fall down" over time?
) what sets the X-37b apart from other orbiting machines, the fact that it can change its orbit.
